Super comp's worth our respect
NOW that we can reflect on another Super Rugby year, it's time to scrap this ridiculous format where Test matches interrupt the season.
NOW that we can reflect on another Super Rugby year, it's time to scrap this ridiculous format where Test matches interrupt the season halfway through.
I understand what organisers have tried to do, but there has to be more consideration given to the players.
What we saw this season was crap.
Asking your best players to physically and emotionally rise for a once-in-a-lifetime series against the British and Irish Lions, and then return to Super Rugby with the same enthusiasm and level of performance is impossible.
Was it any wonder the Brumbies got beaten by the Force the following week, or the Reds were trounced by the Crusaders a fortnight later, when their top stars were still emotionally reeling from the defeat to the Lions?
We don't see any other major competition in world sport taking a break for a month so the players can participate in internationals, and then resume their club duties.
It is diluting the value of the Super Rugby competition.
We should return to the old format where the tournament is played straight through, from round one to the final, without interruption, and then host inbound Tests.
I realise the competition is bigger than it was a couple of years ago, and rugby administrators are trying to squeeze as many games as possible into the calendar. But if Super Rugby wants to be taken seriously as the best club rugby competition in the world then it must be
given respect.
It should not make way for Tests and then be forced to resume when a lot of interest has dropped off from the general public.
The players are only human, and the organisers need to think about the player and not the product.
They need to have some consideration of the physical exertion and intensity players experience in a big Test series.
The Wallabies players would have been shattered following the defeat to the Lions, and that pain does not simply disappear by rejoining their club and preparing for a Super Rugby match the next week.
In turn, the standard of the Super Rugby competition is affected once these players return, so we're not seeing how truly good it can be at the pointy end of a season.
I am really appreciative I played at the time I did, because now the game has become all-consuming. You play from February to December, have four weeks off and are expected to return in top shape for pre-season training.
True, players now are better paid than ever before, but we should also consider how to improve the game.
We're not seeing much difference in terms of a spectacle that rugby delivers from a decade ago, we're just seeing more rugby.
That is the commercial reality of the modern game, but I question whether splitting the Super Rugby competition actually makes it as appealing to sponsors and fans.
Certainly in Australia, there was a drop-off in interest among the general punter, because they, like the players, had invested so heavily in the Lions series. The defeat left a lingering sour taste that wasn't going to be wiped by watching their Super Rugby sides, who hadn't played for a month and produced largely flat football.
And this year we had the added issue of the New Zealand and South African Super Rugby teams resuming competition while Australians were still involved with the Lions. Who can keep up?
It makes Super Rugby look like an afterthought, when it should be held up as a pillar of the rugby calendar.
By playing the competition straight through without a pause allows every team to plan and prepare to peak at the right time. No team is left at a disadvantage for producing more Test footballers than their rivals.
The players don't get burned out by going through highs and lows for their club, their country, and back to their club again.
Going back to the original format will ensure that interest in Super Rugby continues to increase as the season progresses. And it will ensure we get the best out of the players. There is no other reasonable option.